How gun control laws have consequences for their authors

What happens when some legislator votes for a gun control bill to make it into a law? Adding restriction on gun ownership makes violent crime more frequent. It makes defensive weapons more expensive. And it puts a few people in harm’s way, often without any actions by them. A person doesn’t have to know that some minor item in their home has become illegal by administrative fiat, but a SWAT team would no-knock the residence anyway, kill his pets and destroy his kids’ hearing with flashbangs. What do you think will happen then?

Most people have friends and relatives. Not everyone is young enough to still be afraid of prison. Grandpa might lack the agility to hunt the SWAT team members involved, but would have no ethical problem with using his deer rifle on those he would hold responsible for the raid against his kids and grandkids. That would be everyone who voted for the enabling legislation, and the person who gave the go-ahead on the local level. Friends would regard everyone from the enforcement agency to the legislators as targets of opportunity. The chances of one of them finding an opportunity over the next few years would be considerable. Rifle, IED, an “accidental” vehicle strike or gasoline at every office entrance would do.Those who’d rather not risk going after hard targets could do in individual local gun control supporters many of whom helpfully advertise with bumper stickers.

Most people won’t do this. But harm enough families and the small percent who would become numbers distinct from zero. Anyone perishing in the attempts becomes a center of a new epicenter of resistance. At the end, we have a civil war or — much more likely — certain people being handed over for the new Nuremberg trials. Obama administration proved its lack of loyalty to their own already. So think long and hard before voting for gun control — your political masters would set you up as the fall guy as soon as it becomes convenient. You won’t rate Secret Service protection to blunt the full force of your compatriots’ vented ire.

14 Responses to How gun control laws have consequences for their authors

No-knock raids have been killing and wounding innocents for a while. The TSA has been out of control for ten years. Nobody has done anything.

Americans aren’t like that any more. In 1775, we had an honor/shame culture. Duelling was not just accepted, but required. A gentleman would literally risk death to expunge a humiliation — and if he didn’t, he would no longer be accepted in polite society. It was men raised in that context who pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honors, and acted on it.

Nobody in America — barring a few gang members and mobsters and others on the criminal fringe — considers honor sacred in the sense that the Founding Fathers did.

And we wouldn’t need just a few people possibly acting that way, we would need thousands. That’s not within the realm of possibility. I wouldn’t do it. I’m just not going to die or go to prison for the cause, not even if I weren’t the only one. I’d throw my life away, accomplish nothing, and be loathed and reviled as a murderous traitorous psychopath. For nothing.

It’s not going to happen. You’re not going to do it, I’m not going to do it, Vanderboegh isn’t going to do it. Nobody is.

I do not regard this government as a legitimate successor to the government established by the Constitution, but to strike at it violently is an utterly pointless form of suicide. Violent acts against the government would be regarded by 99% of the population as proof that the government must engage in further and more violent repression. People striking against the government would have zero legitimacy in the mind of the public. Zero. So what could they hope to accomplish by it? Public fear of liberty would increase, not diminish.

It’s far too late to win. If we have to fight to restore liberty, liberty is already lost and we are already hopelessly in the minority. Those of us who represent a remnant of the old United States can’t fight back at this point. Think of it as a chess game where that move leaves your king exposed. That move just isn’t an option. It may be appealing on an emotional level, but it will get you destroyed. The mammals who ate the dinosaurs eggs did not try to take over by force. They just outlasted the dumb bastards.

We can’t afford to lose any of the remnant to suicide, especially forms of suicide that’ll get the rest of us ground harder under the bootheel. The good news is that what can’t go on forever, won’t. Quietly separate, quietly gather together, and quietly and peacefully prepare to help each other survive the collapse.

Finally, Oleg, libertarianism is an ideology that only makes sense to decadent folks in the midst of a collapse. Our current debt-suicide-gestapo madness is the only hothouse that flower has ever grown in. If you had to choose between fiscally responsible social conservatism and gestapo-debt-suicide with gay marriage, if you HAD to choose one or the other, just imagine if you had to prioritize, for the sake of clarifying your values, which would you choose? Think of it as one of those Orson Scott Card situations where the character must choose exactly one of two unspeakable alternatives, and can’t blow it off.

We had plenty of assassinations and ambushes against various government officials in the 1860s and the 1960s. We’ll have them again at various times. This kind of stuff comes and goes and it may take creative forms as the technically competent find ways to deliver injury to the deserving parties. I think our “social betters” dimly realize that and so play mostly by the rules so far.

Sir, just because YOU won’t do anything do NOT begin to assume that you know what I will do or what anyone else will do. obviously there will be some that will not fight no matter what is at stake but there will always be the few who will and those few are much more important to the survival of liberty and humanity than the “many” will ever be.

When you’re older and have less to lose, or you see things in a different light, things look different.

There are rights violations taking place. There are clearly identifiable perpetrators and accomplices. If our legal system continues to refuse to enact justice, there will be fallout. It doesn’t matter your opinion, or the number of powerful friends the perpetrators may have. They will be alone at some stage.

Considering the legal changes after 9/11, I’m wondering if there is any tyranny modern Americans won’t put with. It appears, from empirical evidence, nothing will get significant numbers to stand up for freedom.

That’s because most try to escape and evade. The consequences I mention happen once the escape fails. Victimizing a dozen or a hundred might not produce the fallout. Harming ten thousand is almost guaranteed to get a few perpetrators hunted and it would snowball from there.

“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”

I think that’s the key to why people haven’t reacted violently yet and that attempts at gun confiscation are the sort of bright red line that many have set as the tipping point. As long as we are well-armed, insurrection, revolt and revolution are possible and we may still be able to change things via the ballot box or the jury box. But a widespread gun grab is the point where it’s all-in or nothing; where you have to start targeting office holders and supporters of the legislation and going after those traitors willing to enforce the will of fascists. The calculus changes for a lot of people that point.

do not make the mistake of assuming the Government cares about the ones hurt by their thugs. anyone whose family member perished in a SWAT raid is automatically put on the list. he’s now a potential terrorist. he will be under surveillance to prevent him from trying anything. if he does it anyway his actions will be used publicly to excuse even more strict gun law. the remaining members of his family will be put on the list. BE CAREFUL. you will not scare the Government enough to make them care about your rights, but you may draw their attention.

what if you do scare the Government? in Poland after World War II a lot of firearms were in private hands. to deal with it the communists banned all firearms and established harsh punishment of 10 years inprisonment for owning one, or even a part of a firearm. in 1968, when the nation was long since disarmed, riots broke out in many Polish cities, among them Radom, where large firearms factory is situated. there was a chance that rioters will get their hands on weapons stored there. THIS scared the government. afterwards all firearms that were not in hands of Army and Milicja (police), ALL FIREARMS in collections and museums, were deactivated. and it was done in a barbaric way of welding the muzzle and drilling a large hole in chamber. like this:http://www.muzeumwp.pl/image/vis-strona.jpg
even XIX-century cap-and-ball guns were destroyed this way. sometimes even flintlocks. just in case.
so do not try to scare the Government.

the only thing the government really cares about is votes, and i think you know what you can do.